Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-11-04
THE HIGHER COURTS.
SyHepses Of % cisi, '.tRcersd a. tie
PreseD ryisr >itltDs 1T tbs
Higaer Courts
d. cislops Rendered In Some Lorg Pend
Ing CRsss-Suprs me Court and G M
mission cf Appeals Hearings.
Correspondence of the Gazettt


TYLER, TEX, Nov. ii. Speer vs. c.
G. Hughes: error from Titus. This writ
of error Was sued out by appellant In
July, 1887. 1t appears that on August l,
same year, appellant died, and that after
wards, on the 23d day OF August, the
one and was approved by the District
Clerk. Held: That under these circum-
stances this court has no jurisdiction Of
this cause, and the motion to dismiss will
be sustsined. Writ Of error dismissed.
Willie, CD.
w. j. Cole VS.. J. G. Crawford ct al ap-
peal from Bowie. Crawford was con-
stable Of Bowie county, aud levied,
in his official capacity, on
two horses and a wagon be-
longing to appellant. Appellant brings
this suit to recover their value, alleging
that appelIees converted same to their
own use and benefit. Crswford's sureties
on his official bond were joined With him
in the suit. Appellant recovered 6 juds-
ment against Crawford, but it was ad-
Judged that he recover nothing against
me sureties, and they were adiudged to
recover their costs. 1t is objected thot
the jury failed to find the value of each
piece of property, but finds the total
value OF the property. Held: Not re-
sensible error, 1t not being perceiVable
l-how appellant can be prejudiced by the
failure to find the separate value OF each
article Of property. Further held: The
court did not err in tailiIg to submit
the question of sale, the petition
falling 10 show any such fact occurred.
It is insisted that the verdict was against
the lsw and evidence because the same
failed to hold the sureties on the bond re-
sponsIble. Held: That the facts show
that the property ives levied upon three
days before the execution Of the bond,
and the sureties on said boEd could in no
wise be responsible for his acts anterior
to the execution Of said boni. No error.
Affirmed. Gaines, j.
A. R. Morris vs.. Lone Star Chapter
Royal Arch MssOns; appeal from Travis.
Appellee, 8 corporation, organized, as 81
legged, for purposes of purely public cher
iGy, brought tbis suit 20 restrain appel
liant, tsx-collector for Travis county,
from proceeding to enforce the collection
of taxes assessed upon certain prop
erty in the city Of Austin, upon
which is erected three-story brick
| building, known as t "Masonic
Temple" The evidence shows That the
rooms in the upper or third story is used
for the purpose of g hal by Masonic and
other bodies The two lower stories aT4
rented to different persons, the tOtal
rental value OF the house being $3.50 per
| month. The court below found that the
plaintiff corporation vas an "institutiGn
Of purely public charity" and that TIE
property was exempt from taxation un-
der the constitution and laws OF this
state. Held: it Can be shown th8t
Eproperty belonging to chsElta6!e sSeo-
citation, not directly and exclusively
used by ii, in fursheraDce OF its
charitable purposes, but partly
rented Tor profit, though its revenues be
exclusively devoted to the objects Of the
charity, is not exempt from taxation in
our state. Tue court below erred IN
holding StherWise. This ruling is de
cisive Of the litigation and there is no
necessity for remanding the cause. Re
versed and rendered for appellant.
Gaines, J.
II. 81. bigger ct Al. vs. J8ue and VIM.
Buchanan; appeal from Marion. Tai9
GAUGE was before this court on former
occasion and is reported in 81 Texas, $50.
It is assigned rs error that the court
erred in permitting the introduction in
evidence of the judgment OK the District
court of Marion county in the case O.!
Juo. S. O'Hara vs.. VIM. Bonner and Z.
Terry and wife. Held: Not error. The
INDICTMENT which this suit seeks TO cancel
! and set aside was alleged to have
lbeen obtained on the ground shat O'Hara
had no title to the fifty sores of land sold
| 70 defendant bigger, and had therefore
broken his warranty. The judgment ad-
nitted in evidence established the title
! IN O'HaTs, and in short that there was II
feality no such breach. It is assigned IS
error that the court erred in permitting e
ttieed to be read to the jury, on the ground
that the deed had not Oaeo delivered and
accepted by bigger, he (BugeE) having
| been specially denied by said Bigger.
Held: Whether the deed was delivered
OF accepted depended on circumstances
OF which the jury we're to be the judges.
| Ii the Judge had excluded the deed, hs
would have takenEthe question away from
the jlry and passed upon the weight OF
the testimony himself. Objection was
had because Of the introduc-
ton in evidence of the deposit
| ton Bilger taken In the case
| of O'Hars ve. Bonner. Held: That
Bilger's admissions made In this deposit
ton were admissible egzinst him. Is
matters not that there wss no commits
sion, or whether they were made under
oath before proper officer. II they had
been made privately TO an individual,
J they should have been received, If proven
| by the party in whose presence they were
made. No error. Affirmed. Willie, c. j.